If the original article contained multiple experiments, which one did you attempt to replicate? e.g., you might respond 'Study 1' or 'Experiment 4'.

Experiment 1

Link to PDF of Original Report

Brief Statement of Original Result

The original results reported that horizontal eye movements improve memory for strongly right-handed (SR) participants, but participants who are not strongly right-handed (nSR) do not show improved memory. An interaction between handedness and eye movement condition (horizontal vs. no eye movements) approached significance for correct recall and achieved significance for false recall; eye movements resulted in fewer intrusions for SR participants, but nSR participants exhibited more intrusions.

Type of Replication Attempted

Conceptual Replication

Result Type

Failure to Replicate

Difference?

Opposite Direction, .25 - .71

Number of Subjects

110

Number of Subjects in Original Study

142

Year in which Replication Attempt was Made

2015

Name of Investigators (Real Names Required)

John Scofield and Bogdan Kostic

Detailed Description of Method/Results

The current study is primarily a replication of Lyle et al. (2008), with elements incorporated from Christman, Garvey, Propper, and Phaneuf (2003), Experiment 1. In the current study participants sat in groups of five to 12 facing a projector screen at the front of a small classroom. Participants were told they would see a series of words appear on the screen, and that there would be a memory test of the words at the end of the experiment. The stimuli were 50 medium-frequency nouns between seven and nine letters long. Words were presented in size 28 Times New Roman font, one at a time in the center of the screen for five seconds each with a two-second interstimulus interval. After the word list was complete the experimenter passed out the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory for participants to fill out and turn over when complete. Participants were then told that they would see a dot alternating back and forth on the screen. Participants were instructed to keep looking at the dot as it moved back and forth. In one condition, the dot alternated between the left and right sides of the screen. In the other condition the dot alternated between the top and bottom of the screen. Participants were randomly assigned to conditions in groups. In both conditions the dot alternated every 500 milliseconds for 30 seconds. The experimenter observed participants to ensure they were following the dot with their eyes. Finally, on the back of the inventory participants were instructed to recall as many words as they could from the first part of the experiment. The recall phase lasted five minutes and then participants were debriefed. Data from four participants were excluded for failing to consistently follow the dot with their eyes.

The current results do not necessarily disconfirm the effect of eye movements and handedness on memory, but the current results at least suggest that effect is dependent on specific conditions (proximity to screen, timing and/or nature of distractor task, and type of control condition). See methodological differences between the current study and the original study below.

Any Known Methodological Differences (between original and present study)?

There were several substantial differences between the methods in the current study and those of Lyle et al. In the current study, the control condition involved vertical eye movements (adapted from Christman et al.), while in Lyle et al. the control condition involved no eye movements. In the current study, participants viewed the stimuli and the alternating dots on a screen at the front of a classroom while seated at different distances and orientations to the screen. In Lyle et al.’s original study, participants’ degree of visual angle appear to have been more tightly controlled, and each participant presumably viewed the stimuli and the dots on an individual computer screen.
Another methodological difference is that in the current study the Edinburg Handedness Inventory was administered between the word list and the eye movement task (adapting the procedure of Christman et al., who administered personality questionnaires as a filler task before completing eye movements), while in the original study handedness was assessed at the beginning of the experiment and there was no filler task or retention interval.

Email of Investigator

Name of individuals who actually carried out the project

John Scofield and Bogdan Kostic

Location of Project

Missouri State University

Characteristics of Subjects (subject pool, paid, etc.)

University students from subject poolStudents were enrolled in an Experimental Psychology (Research Methods) course and participated as part of a lab activity that was led by the instructors.

Where did these subjects reside?

United States

Was this a Class Project?

No

Further Details of Results as pdf

Additional Comments

Email of Original Investigator

Quantitive Information

I have complied with ethical standards for experimentation on human beings and, if necessary, have
obtained appropriate permission from an Institutional Review Board or other oversight group.